Moontanman

I'd like to just have him tell me why gravity would be less on a smaller but same mass Earth....

I believe there is a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus, i am quite firm in my belief, I have no evidence to back that up what so ever but I firmly believe it to be true, no amount of objections by anyone can convince me there is not a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus... Does that make the reclining chair real? So far no one has provided any evidence to support the expanding earth theory at all, none, all i see are claims not backed up by any evidence what so ever, much like the reclining chair in orbit around Uranus. And rightly so because it is not science it is belief, much like "creation science" it contains no real science just stuff that sounds "sciency" I think in fiction it is called technobabble... there is another word for it as well, male bovine excrement I believe is the technical term... This is quite true, all who believe in the fallacy of an expanding Earth should take this to heart... The number of people who believe either theory is not significant to it's veracity. Yes we can, radioactive decay and gravitational compression explain it quite accurately, have you not even bothered to read the people who have taken their time to answer you? Yes it was No it's not... What is that supposed to mean? Who attached the shards of the earth to a larger sphere? Your analogy falls badly but the idea of plate tectonics explains why the Earth looks that way. So you have no libraries where you live? Good for you, i have a reclining chair in orbit around Uranus I'd like to sell you. This is true and it was mainly because the idea of the Earth as the center if the universe was religious in nature not science. Your expanding Earth theory has a similar flaw, it is based on belief not evidence... I am very curios, do you have any idea of how much volume would have to be created by this expansion? The Earth, if it was reduced to the size necessary for the current land surface to be it's entire surface (as your opening video claimed) would only be the size of Mars, it would take ten planets the size of Mars to make the mass of the Earth so a Mars sized Earth would have to increase it's mass by ten X Mars to be as big as it is today. The Earth is 6.75 times the volume of mars so to increase it's volume by that amount would mean 6.75 Mars sized bodies to make up the Earth as we see it today. This is far beyond what it would take to just move the continents around, there is so much evidence that falsifies your idea it's quite difficult to list them all. Oh yeah another one, why would the mechanism that expanded the earth not expand the continents as well? if that happened the crust of the earth would not have separated to begin with but would have grown along with the Earth. Venus is thought to have slowed down due to an impact event similar to the one that formed the Earth/Moon system but Venus wasn't as lucky as the Earth and the impact event slowed down the planets rotation instead of forming a large moon. This is more likely than the event that formed the Earth moon system. It has nothing to do with Venus expanding or contracting.. 250 million years ago? Do you not even know when the dinosaurs lived? And your own theory says the Earth has not changed in mass, if your idea is true then the gravity would be higher then than now, if the Earth was smaller but had the same mass as now the gravity would be much higher not lower. Also not true, the bones of the sauropod dinosaurs (the ones you are talking about) were not hollow, it was the theropods that had hollow bones and yes they got large too but hollow bones are stronger than solid ones. Just like a hollow tube of metal is stronger by weight than a solid tube of metal. Besides this being total bullshit, elephants are not the largest land mammals to have existed anyway. Even if the air was the same density as it is today (and there is evidence there was not only more oxygen but denser air) such a large insect is not impossible or even hard to understand, it was the evolution of flying vertebrates that killed of such large flying insects, they could not compete with flying vertebrates. Why would you think radiation exposure was any higher then than now? Even though the core is if anything denser now than it was then (not by much I am sure) but if the core density changed it would be denser not less dense and then as you say there is the mechanism for it, how did it happen. It goes against all we know in physics, there is no reason or mechanism for planets to become less dense and larger in volume other than heat and that much heat would have vaporised the Earth. BTW the idea of an expanding Earth smells very much like creationism in sheep's clothing, smells very similar.

Evolution is not always positive, evolution actually has no direction, natural selection is not directing anything in any direction other than survival. You should also note the number of chromosomes has nothing to do with the complexity of the animal, amoeba have a huge number of chromosomes, so do many ferns. I respect your belief in God but you have to understand that while seeing God in nature makes perfect sense if you are a believer, trying to tie God to science has many pitfalls not the lest of which is that science changes it's stance on things as new evidence comes in, religion not so much. It's much like the saying, "i have no problem with the concept of God it's his fan club that is really disturbing". If you say, for instance, that the Big Bang theory is how God made the universe then next year some intelligent individual finds evidence that we were wrong about the big bang theory then does God become wrong too? Or does religion require that everyone believe the big bang theory because it agrees with religion? Mixing the two is always a risk to your own belief system if you are honest about what you believe.

I can confirm that a chicken that has it's entire set of flight feathers can fly quite well, a couple miles at least and then there was mike the headless chicken that lived 18 months with it's head cut off http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.php Bipedal dinosaurs, the largest ones anyway, seemed to be heading in the evolutionary "direction" of having no arms at all, almost half of T-Rex's "arms" were inside his body... I'm not sure if a body function so throughly lost as a birds "hands" can be re-evolved, i wouldn't expect to see whales re-evolve limbs from their fins. Penguins swim with their wings much like other birds fly, they do indeed fly under water and they can out swim many fishes, their wings are very fin like in appearance but are still wings.

Jimmy, what were you trying to say?

What the hell is that thing on Trump's head and is it eating his brain?

While I am the first to say that the subject of alien space craft visiting the Earth needs more real investigation than the subject has received so far, nondiscript lights in the sky neither prove nor disprove anything...

Gold suggest life as we know it could exist down to 10 kilometers, if the temp thresh hold is higher (and some scientists suspect it is as much as twice as high as we now know) life could exist much deeper, this deep hot biosphere uses upwelling hydrocarbons and oxides of metals and sulfer as an energy source and a source of hydrogen. The bio markers often cited in oil are from microbes eating the oil not from surface life crushed by over burden. I read your link, it is obvious I am not qualified to argue this and Gold is dead, I'll have to reread Gold's book but if my memory serves me correctly his theory is not being interpreted the way Gold asserts in his book. Gold argues that microbes can convert methane to heavier hydrocarbons in the deep hot biosphere, your link asserts they cannot... I'll let Gold speak for himself. http://www.pnas.org/content/89/13/6045.full.pdf

I think it's also worth pointing out that much of the elements produced are short lived radioactive isotopes of other wise stable elements and they release a lot of heat as they decay. It's how partial melting can occur on relatively small bodies.

He is saying the material that formed the primordial Earth consisted of hydrocarbon bearing asteroids and that as the earth warms up these hydrocarbons are being released (possibly great heat disassociated them) and as they up well up microbes that exist at these depths metabolize them and form the familiar hydrocarbons we see today. He is suggesting this has been going on since the formation of the Earth and these hydrocarbons form the basis of a Deep hot biosphere who's end result is oil and coal, methane would be the original gas being produced abiotically (if i understand correctly) but microbes turn it into heavier hydrocarbons as they feed on it. If you are really intrigued I suggest you read his book, any good library should have it, it's not along book 300 pages or so, took me only three hours to read it but it changed my mind completely about the origin of oil. coal was the hardest part to swallow but he explained it quite well too. Oil wells up naturally all over the earth, some estimates put the natural upwelling of oil as greater than the oil being harvested by humans, satellites can see it as it wells up in the oceans and spreads out, black smokers deep in the ocean produce lots of methane as well from igneous rocks. . Oh yeah, according to Gold helium is a big indicator that hydrocarbons are abiotic, helium is most often associated with oil and natural gas.

It's the idea that animals as successful as dinosaurs would, even if it was only one species, remain confined to as small a region as this dinosaur is reported from that really bothers me. A sauropod dinosaur should pretty much spread out with no other animals being able to prey on it and occupy much of the entire Continent of Africa and it should have speciated as well. A population of sauropod dinosaurs should have spread everywhere and left huge numbers of fossils after the KT bountry...

I think it should be pointed out that the video portrays the earth expanding in 40 million years or so, that would mean adding two or three earth masses to the earth in that time span. Such an addition should be quite energetic and would leave the earth molten, possibly even leave the out layers of the earth as Gaseous rock. I mean really? Really? REALLY?

I can honestly see how one might think the expanding earth fits the ide of the earths continents once being close together and how they seem to fit together but there is no mechanism that would allow for the expansion of the earth. How ever there is a mechanism that explains plate tectonics. The energy to drive plate tectonics comes from radioactive decay and gravitational compression. There is even a school of thought that says there is a huge ball of uranium and thorium at the center of the earth about 5 miles across, a natural nuclear fission reactor kept from exploding by the gravitational pressure of the earth. All of these things are possible and violate no laws of thermodynamics. The idea of the earth expanding has no mechanism and does violate the laws of nature. Until you come up with a mechanism for the earths expansion i see no reason to entertain a theory that doesn't explain anything any better than the current theory and violates the basic laws of nature as well. Come up with a mechanism and then your theory will be looked at less sceptically.

It's also unlikely there will be large pure deposits of precious metals like gold or silver or even copper, it is thought, by some at least, that biological processes concentrate there metals on the earth. At the very least geological processes are required to concentrate then and this doesn't occur on small bodies.

Quite possibly your biology teaxher was thinking of his or her experinces with tube steak Marat, sounds like the perfect hobby for that guy... and I've heard that clowns taste funny...

I think the Trojan asteroids would be our best best, lots of volatiles, and organics. I think space construction will be with carbon Nano tubes more than metals so the possibility of organics and maybe even hydrocarbon ices would make them good targets for colonization. There are more than one million Trojans larger than 1 kilometer in orbit near Jupiter, they are all relatively close together and would be easier to exploit than the main belt asteroids that are much further apart and in widely varying orbits.

According to wikki the chemical phytane occurs in Archaea bacteria, which are the bacteria Gold says eat the upwelling hydrocarbons, but Gold does address porphyrins in oil on page 134 to 138 of his book. Porphyrins such as hemoglobin and chlorophyll are attributed to biologic debris but the ones found in oil do not contain iron or magnesium but only vanadium and nickle neither of which are used by surface life forms. I'm not doing his book much credit i am sure but he does address this issue. If you like I'll try to quote him verbatum. According to Gold and other earlier authors it comes from deep in the earth via hydrocarbons from accretion debris like carbonnaceous chondrites and elemental hydrogen upwelling from the mantle, catalysts cause the reaction that makes methane, bacteria use the hydrogen and leave behind every larger molecules of hydrocarbons with less and less hydrogen. the end result is coal, intermediary results are the various hydrocarbons. Coal is often associated with oil deposits as well as other hydrocarbons like methane. All of these hydrocarbons contain helium in concentration 100's of times higher than the surrounding rocks. There is no chemical means to have concentrated helium the helium is dissolved in the oil because it comes from deep under ground where they both come from.

lemur, i honestly don't understand why abortion on demand with no guilt would allow sexual freedom any more than birth control being readily available with no guilt. 100 years ago it was condoms that were illegal and the idea of family planning obscene. i am not going to argue for abortion here lemur, i simply cannot, it's too much of an emotional issue for me but I honestly cannot see why i should have the right to tell some one else who is pregnant what she can and cannot do.

This is a straw man argument, why does sexual freedom hinge on abortion? There is more than enough birth control to keep abortion from ever being necessary but the main thrust of sexual regulation is to restrict birth control, abortion is just a buzz word used to inflame the masses from the real issue.. birth control and the right to have sex any way you and a partner want.

No, it is demonstrably false, homo sapiens did not move out of Africa until around 50,000 years ago, that falsifies your entire premise.

I would think the salt in your urine would be the deciding factor in plant growth most microbes as well.

You made the claim read the rules of this forum. I know personally hundreds of people who are nudists and are ethical people. World wide their are many millions of nudists, I see no reason to label these people as unethical, and I see no evidence they are unethical and I see no connection between nudity and ethical behavior but you said their is, now show some evidence of this...

I understand that at this time the main stream view is that almost all hydrocarbons are biology reworked by geology but as I said there are other schools of thought and they do have considerable evidence that mainstream science seems to be less than willing to look at. In his book Thomas Gold give a huge amount of evidence as to why mainstream science is incorrect in this assumption. While i am not an expert and do not pretend to be, the evidence of abiotic hydrocarbons being the main source of hydrocarbon in the Earth is over whelming, the evidence against is somewhat less than overwhelming to say the least... Science in the former Soviet Union used this evidence to find oil in places mainstream science predicts there would be no oil. Thomas Gold used his theory to find oil in places where there should be no oil, not to mention life in those places as well. Naturally occurring hydrocarbons contain undeniable evidence of it's deep abiotic origins, evidence that is ignored by mainstream science because it is not possible, not because it does not exist...

The last I heard about the dinosaur "death pose" of long necked dinosaurs and other creatures was that it was from tendons shrinking after death, not a prolonged death.

I've seen it argued quite a bit but sexual restrictions are mainly religious and religion is a difficult thing to argue, if you believe then my disbelief doesn't matter and there are far more believers than non believers and believers pretty much make the rules and if you are not a believer then you have little to no political power. Try to get elected in the USA if you are not a beleiver...